On Monday, March 15th, 2010, US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood announced a new "complete streets" policy that would put planning for bicycling and pedestrians on equal footing with highways and transit. In his blog, Secretary LaHood states that "this is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized." Unfortunately, that message hasn't resonated in Jacksonville. In February 2013, two major downtown streets will be reconstructed for bus rapid transit and bicycle facilities will not be included.

Adam W

So, will bikes not be permitted to use the bus lanes? That would be the quick and easy fix. It's less ideal than dedicated bicycle lanes, but it's not too bad - I commute daily by bike and use bus lanes (which are restricted to buses, bicycles, cabs and motorcycles). It's okay and I prefer it to cycling in regular traffic, which can get a bit hairy at times.

This just reinforces why Jacksonville is lost and needs to find FIND. Crescimbeni is introducing an Ord. That will address the FIND Disaster process. Too little too late?

So who will get the bicycle lane included?The Mayor?The new Downtown Authority?City Council?FDOT?Don Redman a cycling guy.Metrojacksonville?JTA?

Good luck. I hope you succeed. I would just like to see a bicycle rack at the new kayak launch at Metropolitan Park Marina and another bicycle rack at the massive urban construction project on the Northbank Riverwalk that is next to the Historic Promised 680' Downtown Public Pier that is connecting to Bay St.

So, will bikes not be permitted to use the bus lanes? That would be the quick and easy fix. It's less ideal than dedicated bicycle lanes, but it's not too bad - I commute daily by bike and use bus lanes (which are restricted to buses, bicycles, cabs and motorcycles). It's okay and I prefer it to cycling in regular traffic, which can get a bit hairy at times.

So, will bikes not be permitted to use the bus lanes? That would be the quick and easy fix. It's less ideal than dedicated bicycle lanes, but it's not too bad - I commute daily by bike and use bus lanes (which are restricted to buses, bicycles, cabs and motorcycles). It's okay and I prefer it to cycling in regular traffic, which can get a bit hairy at times.

This could be a solution, considering this is what's proposed on the Southbank. However, plans currently show that the bus lane will become an extra travel lane for cars during off peak hours. So as a part of the streetscape, these roads will be "widened" from an existing two travel lanes to three.Good question.

Adam W

I may be missing the point here, but the only 'plus' I can see to a BRT system is the 'R' part - and if the lane is shared with cars (even only sometimes) it means it will basically be business as usual. So I don't see the incentive to ride the BRT if it's going to potentially be stuck in traffic (at times).

I think a trolleyway in the area where the bus lane is would be a far better idea. There could be a low curb separating it from the traffic lane. And it even makes more sense if the bus lane isn't going to be used as a cycle lane.

The sidewalks are going to be 8.5-13 ft wide, and yet nobody is going to use them. Put in a 5 ft bike lane and find a way to make it work at the sidewalk level so at the rare moment it does dip down to 3.5 ft, a creative solution can be found to keep it at 5 ft (what's an additional 1.5 ft).

The problem with the city is that people either don't have a brain to use or they just don't feel like using them.

Adam W

The sidewalks are going to be 8.5-13 ft wide, and yet nobody is going to use them. Put in a 5 ft bike lane and find a way to make it work at the sidewalk level so at the rare moment it does dip down to 3.5 ft, a creative solution can be found to keep it at 5 ft (what's an additional 1.5 ft).

The problem with the city is that people either don't have a brain to use or they just don't feel like using them.

That's a great idea. And it's not like there will be so much pedestrian or cycle traffic at first anyway - so it's not like shared use for the narrower bits would be that big a deal.

It would seem that, if the city is going to spend a lot of money and undertake a major transport project, they would at least try and address these sorts of issues when they're doing it.

Did anyone ask why at the meeting? They are doing it on the Southbank, so it is not like they are opposed to it. Maybe there are some other factors at play here? City opposition maybe?

Could it be the same entity that thought it was a good idea to spend $800k on a pocket park next to Salvation Army on Main Street? That same entity that has assembled a task force that recommended spending $30k/annually for a chair shuffler in Hemming Plaza? That's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. But the core reason or who is specifically at fault really isn't the issue, IMO.

If someone wants an extra travel lane and parallel parking, there's still enough room to accommodate a 4' to 5' bicycle lane as Simms3 pointed out. A simple solution to accommodating all of those things is to slice 2' to 2.5' from each sidewalk to create the necessary room. If someone simply doesn't want bicycle facilities that improve safety for the end users, then even that needs to be clearly known and openly discussed and debated throughout the community. Which leads to why I wrote this article.

The thing I hope to bring out with this story is highlighting what's coming our way in the upcoming months and the opportunity we stand to lose while the design process is still ongoing.

It's better to bring this up for discussion now, then after its built and people start questioning why we would spend millions on reconstruction in the 21st century and not incorporate basic quality-of-life enhancing and safety elements of urban roadway design that are openly endorsed and recommended by the USDOT. Perhaps the dialogue will prompt a decision maker higher up in the food chain than the rest of us to influence a modification before its too late?